Analysis of health inequities in transfers of admitted patients from an academic emergency department to partner community hospital.

BACKGROUND: Many academic medical centers (AMC) transfer patients who require admission but not tertiary care to partner community hospitals from their emergency departments (ED). These transfers alleviate ED boarding but may worsen existing healthcare disparities. We assessed whether disparities exist in the transfer of patients from one AMC ED to a community hospital General Medical Service. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients screened for transfer between April 1 and December 31, 2021. During the screening process, the treating ED physician determines whether the patient meets standardized clinical criteria and a patient coordinator requests patient consent. We collected patient demographics data from the electronic health record and performed logistic regression at each stage of the transfer process to analyze how individual characteristics impact the odds of proceeding with transfer. RESULTS: 5558 patients were screened and 596 (11%) ultimately transferred. 1999 (36%) patients were Black or Hispanic, 698 (12%) had a preferred language other than English, and 956 (17%) were on Medicaid or uninsured. A greater proportion of Black and Hispanic patients were deemed eligible for interhospital transfer compared to White patients and a greater proportion of Hispanic patients completed transfer to the community hospital (p < 0.017 after Bonferroni correction). After accounting for other demographic variables, patients older than 50 (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.40), with a preferred language other than English (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.62), and from a priority neighborhood (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.61) were more likely to be eligible for transfer, while patients who were male (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.05) and younger than 50 (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.20-2.78) were more likely to consent to transfer (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Health disparities exist in the screening process for our interfacility transfer program. Further investigation into why these disparities exist and mitigation strategies should be undertaken.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Bystander Naloxone Training Course.

Introduction: Bystander provision of naloxone is a key modality to reduce opioid overdose-related death. Naloxone training courses are available, but no standardized program exists. As part of a bystander empowerment course, we created and evaluated a brief naloxone training module. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of a naloxone training course, which was paired with Stop the Bleed training for hemorrhage control and was offered to administrative staff in an office building. Participants worked in an organization related to healthcare, but none were clinicians. The curriculum included the following topics: 1) background about the opioid epidemic; 2) how to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose; 3) actions not to take when encountering an overdose victim; 4) the correct steps to take when encountering an overdose victim; 5) an overview of naloxone products; and 6) Good Samaritan protection laws. The 20-minute didactic section was followed by a hands-on session with nasal naloxone kits and a simulation mannequin. The course was evaluated with the Opioid Overdose Knowledge (OOKS) and Opioid Overdose Attitudes (OOAS) scales for take-home naloxone training evaluation. We used the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare scores pre- and post-course. Results: Twenty-eight participants completed the course. The OOKS, measuring objective knowledge about opioid overdose and naloxone, had improved scores from a median of 73.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.3%-79.9%) to 91.5% (IQR 85.4%-95.1%), P < 0.001. The three domains on the OOAS score also showed statistically significant results. Competency to manage an overdose improved on a five-point scale from a median of 2.5 (IQR 2.4-2.9) to a median of 3.7 (IQR 3.5-4.1), P < 0.001. Concerns about managing an overdose decreased (improved) from a median of 2.3 (IQR 1.9-2.6) to median 1.8 (IQR 1.5-2.1), P < 0.001. Readiness to intervene in an opioid overdose improved from a median of 4 (IQR 3.8-4.2) to a median of 4.2 (IQR 4-4.2), P < 0.001. Conclusion: A brief course designed to teach bystanders about opioid overdose and naloxone was feasible and effective. We encourage hospitals and other organizations to use and promulgate this model. Furthermore, we suggest the convening of a national consortium to achieve consensus on program content and delivery.